Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

The date being 12 Sep 2008, Peter Naulls <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> decided to
write:

Richard Porter wrote:

And, thereby adding yet another variable for each minority browser
you take into account.

No, you can't possibly test a web site on every single platform/
browser combination. You can write html that is likely to run on any
browser, and enhance it to take account of more advanced browsers
without compromising more basic browsers.

Which is what the Govt is trying to do, and most of the web
is about. No doubt you disagree with the specifics, but that
doesn't help solve browsing in general.

But the government is saying don't worry if your web site doesn't work
on any browsers with under a 2% penetration. I'm saying you shouldn't
be concerned about specific browsers.

Whether they should or not, it's pretty consistent with what
is done elsewhere. "Shoulds" doesn't improving browsing
experience. And even if they _did_ do what you insist,
it doesn't help the rest of the web one jot.

I don't know what you mean by "help the rest of the web".

What else _could_ I mean? I mean every other page out there.
For me, UK Govt sites have limited interest.

Maybe, but if you need to use a government web site to pay your tax or
find out about the benefits you're entitled to or whatever, you
expect it to work on your browser without having to download the
latest version of Internet Explorer.

I want information, not a "browsing experience".

There isn't much difference. The web is increasingly
applications, not just information like it was 10 years ago.

Phrases like "browsing experience", "shopping experience", "viewing
experience", "travel experience" make me squirm. It sounds as though
I'm being sold something I don't want, and wrapped in cotton wool to
boot. I just want to get some information, buy something, see
something or get from A to B with the minimum of hassle. If I have to
fight my way through the ticketmaster web site and beat its stupidly
short timeouts I'm not going to bother whatever platform I'm using.

As for "applications" that would just appear to be moving more
processing client side to take some load off the server. It isn't
usually necessary. There's a great temptation to do things just
because you can rather than because you need to.

If you're writing an interactive entertainment site then you may well
need to restrict it to more up-to-date browsers, but there's a big
difference between entertainment sites and public sector web sites
that everyone might need to use.

Then you still miss the logical flaw in your argument. It doesn't
_matter_ if a tiny subset of sites on the internet are held
to stringent standards.

There are all sorts of web sites out there some of which haven't been
updated for years, and browsers have to do the best with what they
find. The other side of the coin is that web sites have to work with
whatever browser finds them.

None of that helps RISC OS in general for every other site out there
that uses post 1998 technology. Whether it be "entertainment" (and my
definition over what constitutes that is likely different than yours)
or something else.

Let's just say that an entertainment site is one you visit because you
want to for your own enjoyment and not because you need to execute
some sort of financial/commercial/governmental transaction or just
find out about something.

This is RISC OS in a nutshell - we focus on tiny problems at the
expense of trying to solve a bigger more general problem which would
produce a result that is magnitudes better.

That's true because we don't have enough financial clout and manpower
to do anything about it, and because not all the commercial parties
involved are necessarily pulling in the same direction. But that has
nothing to do with public sector web sites.

--
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Browser support was Re: New Group for DesignBAIS
    ... I, as the customer, have selected tools & standards ... > JavaScript, recognizing that a web graphic designer is more likely to ... >> as many browsers as possible has been the best approach. ... easy to navigate web site that presents useful ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • Re: OT-- do I really need to upgrade my IE 6.0??
    ... If you really find IE6 better than current browsers, I would respectfully question your knowledge in that field. ... Sites will still open, and in many cases will look fine, but in others, float drop, the 3 pixel jog, and other "fun" assorted problems caused by the lack of support for the box model will cause problems. ... Client uses Amazon.com web site and a local public library web site. ... Microsoft actually has the chutzpah to publish a list of hundreds of web sites known to be incompatible with IE 8. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • Re: OT-- do I really need to upgrade my IE 6.0??
    ... If you really find IE6 better than current browsers, I would respectfully question your knowledge in that field. ... Sites will still open, and in many cases will look fine, but in others, float drop, the 3 pixel jog, and other "fun" assorted problems caused by the lack of support for the box model will cause problems. ... Client uses Amazon.com web site and a local public library web site. ... Either because my client did not do it right or because "Compatibility View" is not truly IE 8 compatible, Amazon.com still could not be accessed. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • Re: Using Publisher 2007 to Create a Web Site
    ... I bit the bullet and got MS Expression Web, ... You're absolutely right when you mention that many people use browsers ... For the past few years I used a Web site creation program, ... that worked well....until I installed IE7. ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites
    ... you take into account. ... without compromising more basic browsers. ... But the government is saying don't worry if your web site doesn't work ...
    (comp.sys.acorn.advocacy)